Thatís a fair question. Hereís why I think Stanfordís system was more suspect:

Mediocre QBs do put up great numbers in the Art Briles/Mike Leach offense. Most of those great numbers, however, are compiled against mediocre defenses. When facing good defenses, particularly with time to prepare, that offense hasnít performed well. Leachís offenses consistently underperformed in bowl games, for example.

That drop off against good defenses didnít happen with RGIII though, at least not this last year. He faced TCU, which had the best defense in the country for two straight years, the first game of the year. TCU had a month to prepare for that game, and Baylor still tore them up. They scored at will.

Meanwhile, although Luck played in a traditional offense, he did it with a great running game and a great offensive line. Play action passing makes a quarterback look better. It makes his decision-making easier, because he usually only has to read one or two guys. We know that system made at least one **** QB (Alex Smith) look great. We also know that without Luck, Stanford easily covered the spread against Oklahoma in their 2010 bowl game.

If in 2002, I had said that Ed Reed was the best prospect in the draft, you would have said:

ďAnd Ed Reed is in no way a better prospect than David Carr, Joey Harrington, Mike Williams or at least 20 other prospectsÖ Whoever wrote this either doesnít have a brain or is 12 years old.Ē

I just donít understand responses like this and several of those above. I donít know with certainty who the best guys are. You doní know with certainty who the best guys are. Nobody does. Iíve given my opinion and a small description of the basis for it. If somebody wants to discuss a player, Iím happy to expand on what I wrote above. Iím sure there are legitimate reasons to disagree (and 40 times isnít one of them). But to just say that youíre right and Iím wrong is idiotic.

Fortunately, time will tell. Hopefully your as quick to post two years from now if youíre wrong.

So, your excuse for rating Mark Barron, an above average safety prospect who lacks any elite attributes whereas Ed Reed had elite range and elite ball skills, over one of the best quarterback prospects in history is some fictitious hindsight bs you just pulled out of your ass?

You need to find better things to do during recess at school then throw together draft rankings when you have no idea what you're talking about.

What did this guy think about Kuechly? At number 10 I wouldn't be opposed to taking Barron and having one of the best safety combo with Jairus Byrd. Byrd can roam free and focus on interceptions while Barron can stack the box and open up a can of whoop ass.

Since anybody can make that throw, could you please post a video of you making that throw?

Please don't combat stupidity with stupidity. Obviously he knows that when he says "anyone" he means nearly any NFL prospect. This is likely the worst valuation I've seen on NFL prospects. It doesn't really matter if you are looking at positional value or not as prospects this list is very off. Could these players be the best in this draft class in the right situation sure but that isn't how you pick prospects.

__________________
Stafford Sig by touchdownrams the rest of the sig by Sig Master Bone Krusher Avy by King of all avys renji

Safeties never get considered for the top pick, and I’ve never understood why. First, it’s a hugely important position on defense. It’s not a coincidence that the two best defenses over the last decade (Baltimore and Pitt) happen to have the two best safeties in football. There’s nobody who changes what an opposing offense tries to do more than Ed Reed. Second, elite safeties are difficult to find. It’s not like running back, where you can stick some undrafted guy back there and it might work out, or wide receiver, where you can trade for or sign an elite guy any offseason if you’re willing to spend money. The position requires not only athleticism, but smarts and a strong work ethic. You have to know opposing offenses well enough to read plays instantly. You can’t just remember a play or focus on covering one person.

Barron’s not as good as Ed Reed, particularly in coverage. (It should be noted that, in my opinion, no football player I’ve ever seen is as good as Ed Reed.) Still, I see some similarities between the two. Both stood out while playing on great defenses. (Alabama and Miami). Both were the unquestioned leaders of their defenses. Both were great tacklers who could hit. Both would consistently prevent the big play, and both would make the game changing pick when their team needed it. Barron will instantly be one of the three or four best players at his position in the entire league. He’ll make any defense he’s on significantly better. Barron is the best player in this draft.

Yes because Ray Lewis, Terrell Suggs, Chris McAllister, Haloti Ngata, Tony Siragusa and Aaron Smith, Casey Hampton, Lamar Woodley, James Harrison etc never had anything to do with those great defenses.

Barron's is a nice safety prospect but the guy doesn't come close to previous prospects like Eric Berry, Sean Taylor, Earl Thomas etc

Quote:

3. Michael Floyd- WR- Notre Dame.

This was a tough call between Blackmon (No. 7) and Floyd. Blackmon was more consistent and productive in college, and that was not simply the result of playing in a better offense with a better quarterback. For that reason, I have no gripe with people who rate Blackmon higher. The reason I disagree has to do with sheer athleticism. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a guy with greater athleticism at wide receiver (size, speed, strength, the ability to catch the ball over defenders) than Floyd. He’s right up there with Larry Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson in that regard. Had we seen him playing with a better quarterback, I think his athleticism would have been even more noticeable. At his best, I think Floyd can be a better player than Blackmon and just about every other receiver in the league. Whether the best WR can be as valuable as a great QB or DT is a question best left for another day though.

I'm sorry, did you just compare Michael Floyd athletically to Calvin Johnson??? Floyd ran fast and to an extent I believed his speed concerns where a little overblown, but Calvin is a freak. 6'5, 239lbs and 4.35 in the 40 and plays just as fast. Don't be silly with the comparisons. Athletically Floyd is similar to Fitz but not as good a WR.

Quote:

4. Andrew Luck- QB- Stanford

I’ve outlined some of my concerns with Luck in a previous post “Joe ESQ Responds to Criticism and Say Andrew Luck is Overrated”. The main one is the fact that Jim Harbaugh’s offense made Alex Smith look like an all-star, so how do we know it didn’t do the same to Luck? Yeah, the guy looked great, but a lot of QB’s look great when their team runs the ball well and allows most of their throws to come on play action. Can Luck consistently move the ball down the field when opposing teams know he has to? Can he read defenses well enough to avoid costly interceptions (like against USC in ’11 and Cal in ’09), and make progressions beyond his primary and check down receivers? I think he can. I just don’t think it’s a sure thing.

Luck is extremely athletic. I was in the stands at the 2012 (2011 season) Orange Bowl. He had us in awe on one play in which he scrambled to the left and threw deep and accurate while getting hit and falling backward. He’s tall, fast and has a great arm. By all accounts, he’s an intelligent guy. Stanford had more success with Luck than it had in years prior to his arrival.
[color="Navy"][b]

Pretty sure Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers etc have all thrown costly picks in big games too, it's how they come back from those mistakes. Also pretty sure that Luck led Stanford back to win against USC this year.

Quote:

6. Justin Blackmon- WR- Oklahoma St.

Blackmon was unstoppable at Oklahoma State. Teams knew they were going to him, and they went to him anyway. He’s tall and fast; basically everything you want in a receiver. As stated above, I would have no gripe with him being ranked above Floyd.

Eh, as far as top flight WRs go he isn't that tall and he isn't that fast.

Quote:

7. Marvin Ingram- DE- S. Carolina

Ingram was a great DE, wreaking havoc on opposing offenses. I have two concerns with him though. First, playing with other good defensive lineman and a good defensive backfield tends to make a defensive end look better. Second, he was going against lousy offenses for the most part this year– lines that couldn’t block and QB’s who didn’t know what they were doing.

Yeah Marvin Ingram sucks. As for Melvin Ingram I have serious concerns about his short arms and where he will actually play. He needs to go to a creative defensive scheme where he will be moved around and given the best matchup.

Quote:

8. Vontaze Burfict- MLB- Arizona State

This is where my list really starts to drastically differ with those of the experts. Burfict didn’t have a great season this year. He supposedly has character issues. What I know is, when healthy and motivated, Burfict was the most dominant player on the field. He was Ray Lewis-esq in that he was involved in every play. Sideline-to-sideline, at the line of scrimmage or 20 yards downfield; Burfeit was where the ball was wherever the ball was. I don’t know his 40 team, but on the field he’s fast. He hits like a freight train. He knows where the ball is going. He intimidates an opponent and makes them take notice of where he is. I think he’s worth whatever risk comes with him.

Supposedly has character issues? That's like saying Antonio Cromartie supposedly has loads of kids. Burfict's instincts aren't great and neither is his athleticism. He also plays way too undisciplined. Has a lot of upside but I wouldn't touch him until late in the draft.

Quote:

10. Lamar Miller- RB- Miami

Miller did have some nagging injuries this year, and as a result his numbers weren’t great. When healthy though, Miller’s the total package. He’s fast enough to outrun anyone, has patience and vision, and has the ability to break tackles and make people miss. Miami’s offense was great with him and lousy without him, and he played his best games against the best defenses he faced. Trent Richardson was a better college running back, but he lacks the speed to do well in the pros, as he struggled against defenses like Penn St. and LSU. There’s a reason Saban replaced him in the title game once they passed midfield. Richardson looks like a mediocre pro RB at best..
[b]

I like Miller as a prospect but his nagging injuries are a major concern for a guy who will be going against bigger, stronger players than ever before. And to say Richardson isn't fast enough is ridiculous. You don't have to be Chris Johnson to have success. Hell, look at MJD, he isn't exactly a blazer.

As for the Kalil disclaimer at the bottom, with the finest of respects, how can you put out a legitimate article the week before the draft but say you haven't scouted one of the consensus top plyaers in that draft?

I'm all for not sticking with the consensus if you feel strongly enough about a guy but this is simply ridiculous.

So, your excuse for rating Mark Barron, an above average safety prospect who lacks any elite attributes whereas Ed Reed had elite range and elite ball skills, over one of the best quarterback prospects in history is some fictitious hindsight bs you just pulled out of your ass?

You need to find better things to do during recess at school then throw together draft rankings when you have no idea what you're talking about.

You missed the point. In 10 years if you were going to re-rank the players in this draft it's going to look completely different than the rankings today. But someone who has completely different rankings today gets laughed at.

You missed the point. In 10 years if you were going to re-rank the players in this draft it's going to look completely different than the rankings today. But someone who has completely different rankings today gets laughed at.

Because in 10 years we have 10 years worth of evidence. Going against the grain for the sake of being different in a situation like this means ignoring existing evidence and making silly predictions. It is beyond hard to take seriously.

That’s a fair question. Here’s why I think Stanford’s system was more suspect:

Mediocre QBs do put up great numbers in the Art Briles/Mike Leach offense. Most of those great numbers, however, are compiled against mediocre defenses. When facing good defenses, particularly with time to prepare, that offense hasn’t performed well. Leach’s offenses consistently underperformed in bowl games, for example.

That drop off against good defenses didn’t happen with RGIII though, at least not this last year. He faced TCU, which had the best defense in the country for two straight years, the first game of the year. TCU had a month to prepare for that game, and Baylor still tore them up. They scored at will.

Meanwhile, although Luck played in a traditional offense, he did it with a great running game and a great offensive line. Play action passing makes a quarterback look better. It makes his decision-making easier, because he usually only has to read one or two guys. We know that system made at least one **** QB (Alex Smith) look great. We also know that without Luck, Stanford easily covered the spread against Oklahoma in their 2010 bowl game.

TCU's defense took a major step back this year going from averaging 12 points a game or lower the past 3 years to over 21 this year. They at the same level as they were in the past. Baylor didn't really play any outstanding defenses last year at all. I'm not saying that Baylor wasn't an amazing offense. They tore people up all year long, but it still was a wide open college offense that doesn't directly translate to the pro game.

Luck's offense wasn't as simple as play action and one or two reads. He was often given the freedom to read the defense presnap and change the play to best attack the defense. There are direct and clear connection to an pro offense. I can't count the number of times I would rewatch a game and pause it to watch Luck go through 3-5 reads with ease on a passing play. If you put swapped Luck for Alex Smith last year, the 49ers would look easily twice as good on offense. I'm more inclined to say that the Baylor system has made many more **** QBs look good than the other way around.

Also the 2009 Sun Bowl game your referencing, you couldn't be more wrong about that. Tavita Pritchard struggled mightily to try to lead that offense and put up 117 yards and 2 INTs. If Luck is in that game, Stanford easily walks away with a win there. We had to grind Gerhart for 32 carries that day to produce anything on offense. The offense went 1-12 on 3rd down with another QB instead of Luck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

3rd round quarterbacks don't bust. worst troll account ever.

He is honestly too dense for me to respond to anymore. I just -rep him every chance I get and move on.

which has precisely zero to do with the post you're responding to. trent edwards didn't bust. he was a third round pick, and last i checked, he's still in the nfl. i mean, it's clear enough that you don't have any idea what you're talking about elsewhere, but this is just a case of being demonstrably wrong. just admit you have no idea what you're talking about and we can all get back to ignoring the ridiculous things you post about luck.

i ignore most of the diatribes, but that's not even trolling. that's just being clearly and obviously incorrect.

What does it tell you when Luck plays the same way like Trent Edwards and is being billed as 1st overall.

And Mark Barron is in no way a better prospect than Andrew Luck, Michael Floyd, Justin Blackmon, or at least 20 other prospects.

I'd be willing to contest that. Not on behalf of Andrew Luck, who is clearly the very best prospect in the NFL draft this year (in my opinion, the best draft prospect since 2007). But I could easily argue that Mark Barron may have a more successful NFL career at his position than either Michael Floyd or Justin Blackmon. Floyd lacks the burst to separate at the NFL level, and that's going to be a major hurdle to his success. Justin Blackmon is a really good receiver after the catch, but everything else he does seems to be just "good enough." Neither of those two guys are what I would call "elite" prospects.

I've got to add here, I'm a fan of Mark Barron. I like him. I think even if you rank him as the 20th prospect in the draft, that's terribly underrated. Physically and psychologically, he's everything you want in a defensive leader and playmaker.

I'm not defending this rankings, they're pure *****. But I'd be willing to spin this as just a bit of positive propaganda for Barron, who deserves to be a higher rated prospect in my eyes than he is.

What does it tell you when Luck plays the same way like Trent Edwards and is being billed as 1st overall.

There copy's of each other.

It tells me that you don't understand the angles and velocity of throws within the context of an offense. Isn't amazing how virtually every NFL scout and organization sees Luck one way while you see him another way. I could see your point if you had even a reasonable percentage of the people who do this for a living in your corner on this, but you don't. Clearly you just like the attention because your viewpoint is indefensible from any reasonable point of view.

Yes because Ray Lewis, Terrell Suggs, Chris McAllister, Haloti Ngata, Tony Siragusa and Aaron Smith, Casey Hampton, Lamar Woodley, James Harrison etc never had anything to do with those great defenses.

Barron's is a nice safety prospect but the guy doesn't come close to previous prospects like Eric Berry, Sean Taylor, Earl Thomas etc

I'm sorry, did you just compare Michael Floyd athletically to Calvin Johnson??? Floyd ran fast and to an extent I believed his speed concerns where a little overblown, but Calvin is a freak. 6'5, 239lbs and 4.35 in the 40 and plays just as fast. Don't be silly with the comparisons. Athletically Floyd is similar to Fitz but not as good a WR.

Pretty sure Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers etc have all thrown costly picks in big games too, it's how they come back from those mistakes. Also pretty sure that Luck led Stanford back to win against USC this year.

Eh, as far as top flight WRs go he isn't that tall and he isn't that fast.

Yeah Marvin Ingram sucks. As for Melvin Ingram I have serious concerns about his short arms and where he will actually play. He needs to go to a creative defensive scheme where he will be moved around and given the best matchup.

Supposedly has character issues? That's like saying Antonio Cromartie supposedly has loads of kids. Burfict's instincts aren't great and neither is his athleticism. He also plays way too undisciplined. Has a lot of upside but I wouldn't touch him until late in the draft.

I like Miller as a prospect but his nagging injuries are a major concern for a guy who will be going against bigger, stronger players than ever before. And to say Richardson isn't fast enough is ridiculous. You don't have to be Chris Johnson to have success. Hell, look at MJD, he isn't exactly a blazer.

As for the Kalil disclaimer at the bottom, with the finest of respects, how can you put out a legitimate article the week before the draft but say you haven't scouted one of the consensus top plyaers in that draft?

I'm all for not sticking with the consensus if you feel strongly enough about a guy but this is simply ridiculous.

thanks for your response, I just showed Joe
Go PATS superbowl or bust!

Yes because Ray Lewis, Terrell Suggs, Chris McAllister, Haloti Ngata, Tony Siragusa and Aaron Smith, Casey Hampton, Lamar Woodley, James Harrison etc never had anything to do with those great defenses.

Barron's is a nice safety prospect but the guy doesn't come close to previous prospects like Eric Berry, Sean Taylor, Earl Thomas etc

I'm sorry, did you just compare Michael Floyd athletically to Calvin Johnson??? Floyd ran fast and to an extent I believed his speed concerns where a little overblown, but Calvin is a freak. 6'5, 239lbs and 4.35 in the 40 and plays just as fast. Don't be silly with the comparisons. Athletically Floyd is similar to Fitz but not as good a WR.

Pretty sure Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers etc have all thrown costly picks in big games too, it's how they come back from those mistakes. Also pretty sure that Luck led Stanford back to win against USC this year.

Eh, as far as top flight WRs go he isn't that tall and he isn't that fast.

Yeah Marvin Ingram sucks. As for Melvin Ingram I have serious concerns about his short arms and where he will actually play. He needs to go to a creative defensive scheme where he will be moved around and given the best matchup.

Supposedly has character issues? That's like saying Antonio Cromartie supposedly has loads of kids. Burfict's instincts aren't great and neither is his athleticism. He also plays way too undisciplined. Has a lot of upside but I wouldn't touch him until late in the draft.

I like Miller as a prospect but his nagging injuries are a major concern for a guy who will be going against bigger, stronger players than ever before. And to say Richardson isn't fast enough is ridiculous. You don't have to be Chris Johnson to have success. Hell, look at MJD, he isn't exactly a blazer.

As for the Kalil disclaimer at the bottom, with the finest of respects, how can you put out a legitimate article the week before the draft but say you haven't scouted one of the consensus top plyaers in that draft?

I'm all for not sticking with the consensus if you feel strongly enough about a guy but this is simply ridiculous.

joe said-

You said Barron doesnít come close to Eric Berry. Why? I understand Berry had a lot of interceptions, but you canít judge a safety on interceptions alone. Berryís impact on the overall defense wasnít that great. Tennesseeís defense his final year there was atrocious. Barron was the best player on arguably the best defense in the country. He might not have won as many subjective awards as Berry, but subjective awards donít mean **** (Roy Williams won more of them than Ed Reed). Barronís body of work was better.

On Luck, you said other great QBís threw costly picks in big games too. So does that mean it shouldnít be a concern? Itís fine if he throws picks because everyone throws picks? It is something that has to be taken into consideration. Youíre right that he came back against USC (although he didnít have the chance against Cal), but letís keep it in context. Stanford ran in the tying TD. I think they ran the last 20 yards of that drive. Then they won in OT when USC fumbled.

Respectfully, I think youíre worried about physical attributes that arenít very important. The height of a receiver is a perfect example. How often does the receiver and corner both jump directly straight and with perfect timing, only to have an inch of height make the difference? I donít remember ever seeing it. We see great receivers all the time who arenít tall, and ****** ones who are. Floyd and Blackmon are good at getting in position, shielding their body, timing the jump perfectly, and making catches over defensive backs. The ability to those things is more important than height. With it, being 6í0″ or 6í3″ doesnít make much difference.

Lastly, on Richardson I should have explained more. I donít care about his 40 speed, I care about the first few yardsĖ how fast he accelerates after breaking a tackle or shaking a defender. What we saw against LSU and Penn State was, he would fight off a tackle, but then by the time he tried to accelerate again, other defenders were all over him. He might be fast enough in a straight line or untouched, but I donít think he has the quickness or acceleration to be a great back in the NFL.